incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:58:14 GMT
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
> sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
> functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
> since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
> elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
> legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.

A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
first release, but not really _the_ goal.

Patrick


> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
>> IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.
>>
>> I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for
>> now.
>> > It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
>> > dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
>> > compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for
>> the
>> > next release.
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will do.
>> >>
>> >> A.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <tom.e.white@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>> >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > So one of the iTest files (
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>> >>> )
>> >>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the
CPL.
>> >>> But
>> >>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>> >>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include
it,
>> and
>> >>> if
>> >>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite
>> the
>> >>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > A.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message